[ posts only (not attachments) ]


View titles only
(by date)
List all documents, ordered…

By Title

By Author

View PDF, DOC, PPT, and XLS files on line

Add NWW documents to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

News Watch

Selected Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups


Resource Documents: Wales (12 items)


Unless indicated otherwise, documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. These resource documents are shared here to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate. • The copyrights reside with the sources indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations.

Date added:  February 4, 2014
Aesthetics, Tourism, WalesPrint storyE-mail story

Penderfyniad ar yr Apêl | Appeal Decision: Pentre Tump

Author:  Wales Planning Inspectorate | Arolygiaeth Gynllunio

Site address: Land at Pentre Tump, South-East of Llanfihangel-Nant-Melan, New Radnor, Powys


The appeal is dismissed.

Main Issues

The main issues in this appeal concern the effects of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the landscape and its consequences in these terms for amenity, and the balance to be struck between the effects of the proposal in these terms and the benefits of the scheme in delivering energy from a low-carbon renewable source, having regard to the thrust of relevant local and national policies concerning onshore wind energy developments.

Landscape and visual effects

The 3 turbines would be positioned linearly along a 1km section of a ridge to the south of the A44 passing through the valley of the Summergil Brook between New Radnor and Llanfihangel-Nant-Melan before it climbs westwards past Forest Inn and proceeds towards Llandegley. The ridge varies in elevation from about 480m at its western end (Bryn-y-maen) to about 425m above New Radnor, generally keeping above the 400m contour along its length. The turbines would be located within enclosed upland pasture on top of the ridge at an elevation of about 420m, with the valley floor at about 280m. To the south of this part of the ridge, across slightly lower ground, hills rise to about 530m (Caety Traylow and Llanfihangel Hill).

Access to the site of the turbines would be from the A44 via Lower House Farm. The existing farm access at this point would be upgraded to accommodate large vehicle turning movements. Two small rudimentary agricultural buildings would be removed to facilitate access. A 5m wide stone track would be formed, substantially following the line of an existing bridleway up the hillside but in its middle section taking a new course across and up the slope. The development would also include individual turbine service tracks and hardstandings, temporary construction compound, and electrical switchgear building and compound, all within the confines of the enclosed upland pasture close to the turbine positions.

The landscape and visual effects of the proposed development have been the subject of detailed analysis and assessment via the ES, including the supplementary environmental information (SEI) prepared in August 2013. The local landscape character appraisal and wind energy capacity / sensitivity analysis in the SEI builds on the earlier LANDMAP aspect area analysis in Chapter 7 of the ES and seeks to provide a more detailed assessment of the sensitivity of the local landscape and its capacity to accept a wind turbine development, based on a 5km radius study area and focussing on the Powys County Council Landscape Character Assessment which is informed by and derived from the LANDMAP study.

However, whilst I accept that the methodology followed in this assessment reflects currently accepted professional guidelines, I consider that analysis of local landscape character and wind energy capacity / sensitivity on the basis of the principal overall characteristics of landscape character area LCA R3 Aberedw Uplands only partly reflects the particular landscape characteristics of the appeal site and its environs. LCA R3 is predominantly characterised as of large scale with broad hilltops, often merging to create an upland plateau landform, with simple landcover. Whilst the proposed turbines would undoubtedly be perceived primarily within this context from surrounding upland vantage points, the turbines and the proposed access track from the A44 would equally significantly be experienced in the context of the strongly- defined Summergil Brook valley and the enclosing Pentre Tump ridgeline, which has very different characteristics to the simpler, broader-scale, unenclosed upland landscape.

Although the landscape on the south side of the A44 carries no national or local landscape protection designation, it is nonetheless evaluated as of high scenic quality. Seen from Llanfihangel-Nant-Melan and the A44 for a kilometre or so to the east of the hamlet, the turbines would be perceived as very large structures, frequently with blades in rotation, occupying a considerable extent of the skyline little more than a kilometre away. Whilst the actual turbine positions would be set back somewhat from the crest of the skyline, and the extent of visibility of each turbine would vary from place to place according to intervening vegetation, structures and landform, I consider that overall the turbines would constitute a highly prominent, almost dominant, element in the landscape. In addition, for eastbound users of the A44 for a further 1.5km or so west of Llanfihangel-Nant-Melan, including those halting at lay-bys at The Van and Forest Inn, the turbines would feature as prominent features attracting the eye on the Pentre Tump skyline ahead.

I recognise that road travellers are generally classified as visual receptors of low sensitivity. However, the A44 is a principal leisure route into Wales, recognised as having scenic value. Given this, and the volume of use as a principal route, I regard the effects of the development as perceived by users of the A44 as significant. This stretch of the A44 west of New Radnor through the Summergil Brook valley and past Forest Inn conveys a sense of drama, whether travelling west or east, with the steep valley sides enclosing the valley floor and extending the upland agrarian landform towards an untrammelled skyline and the upland heights beyond. The valley also contains the hamlet of Llanfihangel-Nant-Melan, which nestles on its floor close under the Pentre Tump ridgeline. The proposed turbines would constitute a highly prominent feature on the immediate skyline for users of the A44 and for residents of and those visiting Llanfihangel-Nant-Melan. I consider that they would be an unduly dominant and distracting addition to the landscape setting of the Summergil Brook valley and the hamlet, due to their scale, prominent skyline position and moving blades. They would significantly harm the present landscape attributes of the locality.

In addition, the proposed access track from the A44 onto the Pentre Tump ridge would be a significant new feature in the landscape. Whilst a number of existing tracks climb the valley slopes, including the access track from Lower House Farm to small masts part way up the hillside, the scale and engineered profile of the turbines access track, with its wider running surface to accommodate the large vehicles involved and elements of cutting and building-out from the hillside, would result in a correspondingly greater physical and visual impact upon the landscape. Although the constructional details and landscaping mitigation proposed would assist in reducing the impacts, I nevertheless conclude that the access track element of the development scheme would comprise a somewhat discordant new element across the largely unspoilt valley side, parts of which would be obvious from the A44 and which would be very evident to recreational users of the bridleways in this location.

The second main area of landscape and visual impact relates to the effect of the turbines on the character and the use and enjoyment of the upland areas in the locality. The site of the turbines is on an upland ridge fringing the elevated block of LCA R3 Aberedw Uplands. This is a large-scale landscape, characterised by hills merging to form an extensive plateau, broad sweeps of sky and a generally unenclosed and undefined landcover pattern. However, notwithstanding that the area has no national or local landscape designation, its scenic quality is evaluated as high. Although the elevation of the Pentre Tump Ridge, on which the turbines would stand, is exceeded by hills to the south and north, the site is prominently located in a range of views and vistas from different directions, with many upland recreational routes leading in the direction of, or having views of, the site. These routes include a number of publicised routes and routes used for pony trekking tours, including overnight stays at Llanfihangel-Nant-Melan.

Indeed, the evidence indicates a concentrated network of recreational routes onto and along the ridge on which the turbines would be located, and over the higher ground of Llanfihangel Hill / Caety Traylow to the south and Bryn y Maen to the west. For users of these routes the proposed turbines would be a persistent presence in the landscape for distances of up to 2.5km from the site, giving rise to a spectrum of effect in the landscape ranging from prominent, through dominant, to overpowering in the immediate vicinity of the turbines. To the north are upland recreational routes descending from the high ground of Radnor Forest, from where the turbines would appear as noticeable elements distracting from the extensive and otherwise unencumbered vista to the far horizon of Hay Bluff and the Black Mountains. Overall, I consider that the extent to which the proposed turbines would impose themselves upon the landscape experienced and perceived by users of the upland recreational routes, particularly the network of bridleways used by horse riders, represents a significant adverse effect.

The turbines would also be a noticeable skyline feature, at a range of about 5km, in the fine vista of the Radnorshire uplands obtained looking westwards from the Offas Dyke Path National Trail over Hergest Ridge. Although Natural England has not objected on grounds of impact on the Offa’s Dyke Path National Trail, and I accept that various man-made structures including other turbines may be visible from various parts of the trail, in this particular landscape context I consider that the turbines would detract from the current fine and untrammelled view of Welsh uplands afforded from the route over Hergest Ridge.

I consider that, notwithstanding the broad landscape characteristics pointed to by the Appellant in support of the case that the host landscape has the capacity to accommodate the proposed scheme, the qualities of simple, unencumbered upland landform, space and relative tranquillity would be significantly interrupted by the proposed turbines. Given the extensive network of recreational routes, both close to and further away, from which the turbines would be perceived as prominent, dominant or even overwhelming, and the level of sensitivity which users of these routes will have to the character of their surroundings, I conclude that the proposed development would have a seriously adverse effect on the character and appearance of this upland landscape and the amenity of its users.

A further matter arising from the relationship of the proposed development to rights of way is the development’s effect on the use and enjoyment of the public rights of way network. In addition to the effect of the turbines on the appreciation of the upland landscape from the various recreational routes referred to above, the proposed development would have impacts on usage of bridleways in the immediate vicinity of the development. Existing bridleways pass 145m from the indicated location of turbine T3 (route 1264) and 150m from the indicated location of turbine T1 (route 1262). Annex C of TAN 8 refers to a British Horse Society (BHS) suggestion of a 200m exclusion zone either side of bridleways in order to avoid turbines frightening horses. TAN 8 notes that this is not a statutory requirement and the circumstances pertaining at any particular site should be taken into account. At the hearing I was informed that the current BHS guidance recommendation is for an exclusion distance of three times the turbine height (in this case, 310m), although TAN 8 remains as before.

Given the evidence suggesting regular usage of bridleway routes 1262 and 1264 past the proposed turbine locations I consider that this is a significant issue. The submitted unilateral undertaking makes provision for new lengths of permissive bridleway to be created, allowing riders to divert from the existing bridleways so that it would not be necessary to ride closer than 252m from turbine T3 and 275m from turbine T1. Whilst I consider that the resulting separation distances if using these routes as an alternative would be likely to be broadly acceptable, it would nonetheless entail an artificial and somewhat convoluted diversion away from the historically used route past Llanwentre Pool and then along the natural line east of Foice Farm around Pentre Tump. Such disruption would dilute the connection between receptor and the historical line of the bridleway route, which is integral to the experience and enjoyment of the landscape. Even though the proposed permissive bridleway measures would create a feasible alternative, I consider that the enforced diversion, for those riders who feel that the turbines would render the existing bridleway route unfeasible or inadvisable, weighs against the proposed development. Moreover, whether using the proposed permissive bridleway sections or not, riders using the rights of way hereabouts would find their experience and enjoyment of the landscape heavily altered, and in my view compromised, by the presence of the turbines.

For bridleway users passing between Lower House and Pentre Tump ridge there would be inconvenience and disruption to normal usage of the right of way during the development construction phase. This would manifest itself first in the enforced use of the proposed temporary diversion; in addition, the initial bridleway length from the A44 would evidently be shared with construction traffic during this period. Second, even though bridleway users would be segregated from the line of the new access road during the construction phase, there would plainly be disturbance and loss of amenity for bridleway users, from the nearby physical construction of the new track up the hillside and then from the track’s use by turbine construction traffic. I accept that these effects would be short-term. However, and longer-term, the physical changes to landform and surface arising from the construction of the new site access road would alter radically the bridleway experience for users of routes 1249/1248 following the construction phase. These adverse effects, whilst not determinative by themselves, weigh in the balance against the proposal.

Whilst I accept that the provisions of the unilateral obligation provide a technically workable solution to bridleway access issues, I nonetheless consider that the new arrangements put forward would represent a poorer state of affairs for users of this significant part of the bridleway network. The financial provisions for signage and other rights of way improvements and the undertaking to provide if required a permissive path people to pass closer to the turbines if they wish are not matters, in my view, which adequately offset the harmful effects I have identified. Overall, I consider that the provisions of the unilateral undertaking do not overcome the harm to amenity which would result from the proposed development. Moreover, the fact that such extensive measures are put forward in an attempt to provide mitigation only emphasises the significant discord between the scheme’s characteristics and the pattern and nature of recreational activity and enjoyment of the landscape which takes place. …

Having considered all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Alwyn B Nixon

Download original document: “Pentre Tump Appeal Dismissed

Bookmark and Share

Date added:  February 3, 2014
England, Property values, WalesPrint storyE-mail story

Gone with the wind: valuing the visual impacts of wind turbines through house prices

Author:  Gibbons, Stephen

This study provides quantitative evidence on the local benefits and costs of wind farm developments in England and Wales, focussing on their visual environmental impacts. In the tradition of studies in environmental, public and urban economics, housing costs are used to reveal local preferences for views of wind farm developments. Estimation is based on quasi- experimental research designs that compare price changes occurring in places where wind farms become visible, with price changes in appropriate comparator groups. These comparator groups include places close to wind farms that became visible in the past, or where they will become operational in the future and places close to wind farms sites but where the turbines are hidden by the terrain. All these comparisons suggest that wind farm visibility reduces local house prices, and the implied visual environmental costs are substantial.

… the largest wind farms (20+ turbines) reduce prices by 12% within 2km, and reduce prices by small amounts right out to 14k (by around 1.5%).

Stephen Gibbons
Spatial Economics Research Centre, London School of Economics and Political Sciences, London, United Kingdom
April 2014

Download original document: “Gone with the wind: valuing the visual impacts of wind turbines through house prices

Bookmark and Share

Date added:  October 15, 2012
Health, Noise, WalesPrint storyE-mail story

Unexplained Low Frequency Noise

Author:  Griffiths, Emyr

Note:  Technical papers distinguish infrasound (below 20 Hz) from low frequency noise (20-200 Hz), since 20 Hz is the lowest sound frequency considered by “experts” to be audible to humans.

I have used the term Low Frequency Noise (LFN) in this document to refer to all sound frequencies below 200 Hz since I do not know what spectrum of low sound frequencies my wife is capable of hearing.

Executive Summary

On behalf of my wife and other people who are sensitive to LFN, I am writing these notes based on recorded and anecdotal observations made over a 3-1/2 year period.

My wife and other people started hearing an unexplained intermittent low frequency noise (LFN) the autumn/ winter of 2006 – at about the same time a wind farm was commissioned nearly 25 miles SE of our home. Prior to this time they never heard any unexplained LFN.

Our hypothesis is that that the audible LFN is emitted by one or more wind farms. Even though we live a considerable distance (10+ miles) from the nearest wind farm – and are out of sight of any wind farms – the LFN can occasionally cause a minor adverse affect my wife’s health when it is particularly loud.

Even though we do not yet have sufficient data to conclusively prove our hypothesis, with wind farms encroaching ever closer to our quiet rural home, I am concerned about the adverse effects the LFN will have on my wife’s physical and emotional health in the not too distant future – if (or when) my hypothesis proves to be true.

As wind turbines continue to get larger and larger, the low frequency (LF) spectrum of noise emitted by wind turbines becomes lower and lower. The use of A-weighted noise measurements, under current ETSU-R-97 noise assessment guidelines for wind farm developments, disregards most of the LFN spectrum emitted by wind turbines. The current regulations make it extremely difficult (if not nearly impossible), for people severely affected by wind farm noise, to get adequate protection from noise regulations governing wind farms.

Another effect of LFN, not covered by noise measuring procedures in ETSU-R-97, is that of resonance – the walls of an enclosed space are capable of resonating low frequency sounds (much like the sound box of a musical instrument) – with the lowest resonant frequency being dependent on the dimensions of the room. This resonance appears to amplify LFN levels indoors. Again ETSU-R-97 procedures to not take this phenomenon into account.

Therefore, people sensitive to LFN have no legal protection from the adverse affects of LFN emitted by wind farms due to inadequacies of the ETSU-R-97 guidelines.

Because of the lack of legal protection offered to LFN hearers by ETSU-R-97 I have serious concerns for the health and well being of my wife, and others, in the not too distant future. I have therefore concluded that I have no option but to put my hypothesis into the public domain now in the hope that my hypothesis will be subject to independent scientific testing.

Download original document: “Unexplained Low Frequency Noise

Bookmark and Share

Date added:  July 6, 2012
Noise, Regulations, WalesPrint storyE-mail story

Grŵp Blaengwen submission on the control of wind turbine noise to the Petitions Committee of the National Assembly

Author:  Dubé, Stephen

I’m chairman of Grŵp Blaengwen, an association of nearly 60 people living in and around the village of Gwyddgrug, Pencader. The group was formally established after consent was granted for the Alltwalis wind turbine development, which became operational in October 2009. We monitor the effects of this installation, gather evidence on wind power generally and more recently campaign against plans for a further 28 turbines up to 145-metres high – the Brechfa Forest West project. Other wind power stations are proposed for the same TAN 8 area G.

Some group members were initially neutral or even in favour of the turbines. Like former Environment Minister Jane Davidson they may have believed that the only disadvantage of turbines was visual. Wind turbine developers and supporters always ignore the issue of sound.

The evidence you will hear today is of lives disrupted, sleep disturbed and health affected by frequent unpredictable and uncontrolled turbine noise. It’s something you may come to feel is best investigated by the health rather than the environment committee. After more than two years of recording the turbine nuisance we are convinced that the whole issue of wind turbine generation should be reconsidered. In the meantime we are calling for a simple solution. We want the turbines switched off at night so that people can get a decent night’s sleep. It’s something that already happens at Heathrow and Gatwick airports. Heavy goods vehicles are similarly banned from residential areas at night. There is no obvious reason why wind turbines should be exempt.

Wind turbine power stations are also exempt from other controls. Normal noise legislation does not apply. Instead planners and environmental health officers must use a methodology known as ETSU-R-97 to assess turbine noise. As long as the noise created is within the ETSU parameters they seem powerless to tackle the problem. ETSU-R-97 was drawn up at the request of turbine developers on data collected in 1995 and 1996 when turbines towers were much smaller and the machinery less powerful. It is now out-dated and fails to protect turbine neighbours. It is also perverse in that, uniquely among noise regulations, it permits higher levels of noise at night when, as everyone knows, the countryside is quiet and noise at its most intrusive.

ETSU-R-97 should be scrapped. We call on planners and public protection agencies to use World Health Organisation noise limits. The WHO says: “Measurable effects of noise on sleep begin at about 30 dB. … When noise is continuous, the equivalent sound pressure level should not exceed 30 dB indoors, if negative effects on sleep are to be avoided. For noise with a large proportion of low-frequency sound a still lower guideline value is recommended.” In comparison the ETSU-R-97 limit on night-time noise from wind turbines is 43 dB.

You will hear today various people speaking about turbine noise. In two of the cases those affected have consulted their GPs and now take medication to help to counter the effects. Members of Grŵp Blaengwen know of other neighbours similarly affected but who either feel helpless and despondent about the whole issue or say they won’t speak out for fear it might negatively affect the the value of their homes. As a group are submitting a dossier which we hope you will take away and read. It will include scientific opinion and a chart that might help to explain the different types of turbine noise. There are also statements from four witnesses who want to offer their personal stories and give verbal evidence today of the effects on their lives. Their homes range in distance from the Alltwalis turbines from about three miles to around 800 metres. Two are longstanding members of our group. Two are not.

First I’d like to call Bleddyn Williams, who farms at Cwmhwplin, Pencader, around five kilometres, more than three miles, from the wind farm.

Statement by Bleddyn Williams, Fferm Cwmhwplin, Pencader

I hear noise in the house day and night since the wind turbines were switched on at Alltwalis Wind Farm. It makes no difference where the wind direction comes from, the humming noise is always with us.

I have lived at the above address, which is about three miles away as the crow flies, all my life in peace and quiet until about two years ago when the turbines were switched on.

The first night they were on I heard this noise in the house about the middle of the night and told my wife I was getting up to see what was wrong, thinking the central heating boiler had not been switched off. Then I continued to check every power point to see if anything was over-heating, but found everything was in order. Then I went to check all the outbuildings, the meter and the transformer, but all was in order. I went back to bed at 5am and told my wife, you can try and sleep now – if anything was going to blow up it would have happened by now.

As our meter was installed in 1959 we had Swalec out to replace it with a new one, but we still had the noise. Then we had them out to check the transformer, which they said was in order. We then phoned Swalec customer services and they said the noise was from the turbines.

I have suffered from lack of sleep for more than two years, and it does affect my health. We can cope with a bit of disturbance in the day time, but not at night time.

I hope you can do something to help us.

This chart explains that it’s not as noisy standing beneath a turbine as standing further away.

This may explain why Ms Davidson assured us during the TAN 8 roadshow that she knew they made no noise because she had stood directly beneath one. My own experience is of a low frequency throb that has awoken me on three occasions in the middle of the night. Like Bleddyn I live some five kilometres – more than three miles – away as the crow flies, but the topography separating our homes from the turbines is completely different. And you will note from the evidence we present that the presence of noise is dependent on atmospheric and weather conditions. It is not a constant problem, but is completely impossible to predict. For this reason we support switching off the turbines at night.

Caryl Harries of Gellifelen, Gwyddgrug are among those badly affected by noise.

Statement from Caryl & Jeff Harris, Gellfelen, Gwyddgrug

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Foster for all his hard work in undertaking this petition and for the opportunity to give evidence.

Following the Alltwalis Wind farm becoming operational in October 2009 we, as well as many others, have suffered terribly from the noise emanating from this wind farm. Eventually, following a number of complaints, Statkraft offered to install noise monitoring equipment at some properties. We worked collaboratively with Statkraft and Carmarthenshire County Council to try to resolve the noise problems by monitoring for 13 months, often getting up late at night and during the very early hours of the morning to switch on the monitors and taking them outside. This was followed by a telephone call to the Control Room at Rheidol. During this period of monitoring Statkraft closed down the nearest two turbines following our telephone call at night.

During this period we collected a huge amount of data for Statkraft which was downloaded as often as three times per week. Eventually, a fault was detected on the gearbox of Turbine 9. T9 remained operational but was closed down following our telephone call complaining of noise nuisance at night. I have been told by an expert in this field that T9 should have been closed down immediately until the problem was rectified. This didn’t happen!

Following repairs to the gearbox Statkraft considered the problem solved. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The only difference is that when we now telephone Statkraft’s Control Room at Rheidol complaining about noise nuisance, even during the very early hours of the morning, I am told “sorry Mrs Harris, nothing we can do – contact your Local Authority”. The Local Authority’s Public Protection Department operates between the hours of 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.

Following 13 months of monitoring and after collecting such a huge amount of data, we as a family agreed that we had done all we could to try to resolve the problem. If the problem could not be solved after this amount of monitoring and to be told continuously that the noise nuisance we were experiencing was all within the guidelines it became obvious to us that monitors were not the answer. The ETSU-r-97 guidelines do not offer any protection for those of us living in areas with very low background noise levels and needs reviewing urgently.

These 10 turbines 110.5 metres high are allowed under Carmarthenshire County Council’s Unitary Development Plan to be built within 500 metres of a property. The two nearest turbines to our farmhouse are 815 metres and approx 900 metres away. They tower over us and totally dominate our home. Due to their enormity it feels as if they are in our garden. Our case has proven that both these turbines have been built far too close as when they were closed down during periods of noise nuisance the intensity of the noise was alleviated immediately. It did not rid of the noise altogether but made life bearable.

In our desperate quest for help in this matter we requested a meeting with Jane Davidson, in her role as Minister for Environment via Rhodri Glyn Thomas, AM, as well as writing and contacting her diary secretary ourselves. She refused to meet with us – but did meet with Statkraft. It infuriated us even further that members of the Welsh Assembly Government were willing to meet with Statkraft but not willing to listen to the people of Wales.

Recently an application has been submitted to the IPC for another 28 wind turbines 145 metres in height, which, if granted planning permission, will be adjacent to the existing Alltwalis Wind Farm. This is a huge worry for us and others living nearby as this will result in cumulative noise and even less respite. We have voiced our huge concerns to N-Power and been told that if there was a noise problem at our property they would bring monitors!

I have written to the First Minister, Carwyn Jones, requesting a meeting regarding our situation. The First Minister did not reply but did forward our letter to the Sustainable Energy and Industry department. They advised us that the Brechfa Forest West application was a matter for the IPC. But the TAN 8 area was designed by the Welsh Assembly Government.

This development has caused us as a family an enormous amount of stress and has impacted severely on our health. I personally now suffer from very high blood pressure for which I am having to take medication. On discussing the effects of this wind farm on us as a family with my GP I was offered a prescription for antidepressant medication – which I have refused to date as I am determined that this is not going to get the better of me, but have had to accept a prescription for sleeping tablets which I will only take as a last resort.

There is no protection for the people of Wales from noise from wind farms. We as well as many other residents feel totally on our own, abandoned by the Welsh Government. We thank Mr.Foster and are extremely grateful to him for submitting this petition highlighting the problems experienced by the people of Gwyddgrug. Getting turbines switched off at night would be an enormous relief for us.

Caryl’s experience is similar to that suffered by the Davis family, who farm at Deeping St Nicholas, Lincolnshire. Jane and Julian Davis, who were initially supportive of wind turbine, sued local landowners and the owners and operators of a wind farm half a mile from their farmhouse. The couple sought £2.5m in compensation for the low frequency hum that made them so ill they had to move out of their home and rent a house some distance away. The problems began immediately after the eight-turbine wind farm began operating in 2006. The noise disturbed their sleep, gave them headaches and made their house effectively worthless.

The case dragged on for more than four years and when it eventually reached the High Court, the defence claimed the couple were “over-sensitive” and were “exaggerating and overreacting” and argued that the owners and operators had done everything possible to deal with the couple’s concerns. But last November the judge was told the parties had agreed a settlement under terms of strict confidentiality – an admission, albeit in secret, of culpability by the landowners and operators.

The Davis family was able to sue, and eventually achieve restitution, because of a clause in their insurance policy. But it took them four years – and they still can’t live in their home. Caryl and Jeff Harries, who live almost exactly the same distance away from turbines as the Davis family, have no such insurance or hope of compensation.

Lyn Morris of Glenydd, Gwyddgrug is another whose nights are sometimes ruined by intrusive noise.

Statement from Lyn Morris, Glenydd, Gwyddgrug

I personally suffer from sleep disturbance caused by the intrusive noise from the Alltwalis Windfarm near my home in Gwyddgrug, and I’ve had to make several life-style changes to try and cope with the situation.

So I’m grateful for this opportunity to explain how disruptive this type of noise disturbance can be, in the hope that decision-takers and policy-makers might start listening and taking into consideration the impacts of this type of development on local people, and save others from having to suffer the same as many of the villagers in Gwyddgrug.

What I have to say isn’t full of scientific or technical jargon, nor is it dramatic and emotional – just a factual account of what it is like to live near a wind-farm.

In 2005 I moved from Essex to Gwyddgrug. People asked me: “Why Gwyddgrug? There’s nothing there!”

Precisely! No school, no pubs, no village hall – just a lovely close-knit rural community with a chapel and a village Post Office. Peaceful, quiet,with lovely views and stunning scenery. Perfect.

My new home was intended to be my ‘last move’ – my retirement home ready for a few years’ time, and the equity in it part of my pension. So I put a lot of thought into leaving my family before moving here. It had turned out to be everything I had expected, but now my way of life here has been horribly blighted.

It was upsetting to find out about the proposed wind-farm developments. It was bad enough to discover that I could see far more of the turbines than predicted by photomontages and wire diagrams. But far, far worse has been the way I, like others, have been misled by developers, energy companies, local authority and Welsh Government officials about the noise. The noise we were told wouldn’t happen!

Again there is no compensation for turbine blight. But the noise issue is not new. It has been extensively studied and reported.

Physicians around the world have recorded ill health effects among people living near industrial-scale wind turbines. The symptoms begin when the turbines start to turn, and are only relieved when the victims leave the area.

The symptoms include:

  • sleep disturbance
  • headache
  • ringing or buzzing in the ears (tinnitus)
  • ear pressure
  • dizziness, vertigo
  • nausea
  • visual blurring
  • racing heartbeat (tachycardia)
  • irritability
  • problems with concentration and memory
  • panic episodes with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering which arise while awake or asleep.

No wonder many families have had to abandon their homes. We draw your attention to the problem caused by the Blaen Bowi wind farm – three turbines on Moelfra Hill, two and a half miles south of Newcastle Emlyn. In 2006 Gwen Burkehardt felt she had no option but to sell up and move away.

That example shows that the noise problem is not new and is widely studied. We refer you to the Frey-Haddon study of the health effects of wind turbine noise, published in February 2007 and to the work of Dr. Nina Pierpont of New York, who recommends that large wind turbines are sited no closer than two kilometres (1.25 miles) from a home.

Terence and Kathryn Neil live much closer than that.

Statement by Terence Neil, Lan Farm, Gwyddgrug

My name is Terence Neil and together with my wife, Kathryn, we live at Lan Farm which is 900m. south-west of the Altwallis Wind Farm.

From the beginning, we were very concerned about several aspects of the proposed wind farm, including noise. The initial developers, Catamount, stated that we would rarely hear them.

Successive developers, Force 9 and then Statkraft never appeared to take local concerns seriously and I don’t believe fully appreciated the implications of the noise footprint that these turbines produce.

From the day the blades started turning there has been noise. Noise measuring equipment was placed in various locations, Lan Farm being one. Measurements were taken and reports produced. We were then informed that the turbines did not exceed the noise regulations. We have been visited by the Public Health Services Department of Carmarthen County Council who agreed as they stood in the yard that there was a noise.

The regulations (ETSU97) relating to noise need updating. What is relevant in an urban area with background noise is not so in a quiet rural hilly area. Noise travels, follows contours round hills and down valleys and reverberates and echoes around and off buildings. It also resonates off water droplets – mist, drizzle. This is when the noise is at its worst.

With the wind from the south-east the turbines sound like a tumble dryer. Statkraft admitted problems with gear boxes – these apparently have been dealt with but to no avail. The main problem at Lan is blade noise, you can hear the whoosh as the blade passes the mast.

We moved down to Wales 15 years ago for, among other things, the tranquillity that this area offered and the quality of life. My wife can no longer wear her digital hearing aids consistently and a neighbour of ours has a similar problem. In addition, when there is blade noise/slap at night, my wife will frequently wake up with a migraine for which she now has to take prescribed medication.

The noise of these turbines affects the people in this community in differing ways. It is not just something that can be ignored. We now have a situation where up to 55 larger turbines are proposed next door to those existing. The noise problem will get worse and the long term health problems will increase – both mental and physical.

[[[[ ]]]]]

A study on turbine noise, sleep and health by Dr Christopher Hanning, Honorary Consultant in Sleep Disorders Medicine to the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust and President of the British Sleep Society, published in April 2010 concluded that the appropriate mitigation of sleep disturbance and annoyance from industrial wind turbine noise is a maximum external turbine noise level of 35dB(A) or a setback of at least 1.5km.

Finally there are the words of the British acoustics expert Dick Bowdler, a Fellow of the Institute of Acoustics since 1977 and a former member of the Government’s Noise Working Group. He has this to say of the ETSU-R-07 methodology:

  1. The level of noise permitted from wind turbines in rural areas is higher than would be permitted from other industrial developments – even other renewable developments. Therefore people are exposed to higher levels of wind farm noise than they would expect from other new industrial noise sources.
  2. If there is amplitude modulation present (that is the swishing or thumping noise that is sometimes reported) this can be particularly annoying because it is relentless and regular and ETSU-R-97 makes no allowance for it.
  3. Most important is the manner in which wind farms are procured. Developers usually have no previous contact with the area and whilst they often make a show of consultation it is almost unknown for them to take local views into account. They are supported by governments who simply ignore people’s valid complaints. This divides communities and causes annoyance and stress which can affect people’s health.

Bowdler also says: “The main difficulty with ETSU-R-97 is that it is quite unsuitable for quiet rural areas because, particularly at night, it sets noise limits not by what is acceptable or reasonably protects amenity but by what is the upper limit that can be tolerated. For example it often permits turbine noise levels four times as loud as the background noise level at night and just into the region where the World Health Organisation says that it may cause sleep disturbance.”

You may be able to imagine how we felt when a Freedom of Information request revealed that civil servants suppressed warnings over health problems caused by ETSU-R-97 limits being set too high. This came in a draft report by the consultants Hayes McKenzie Partnership, one of the companies that drew up ERSU-R-97 in the first place. The document said the best way to protect members of the public was to cut the maximum permitted noise to 38 decibels – or 33 decibels if the machines created discernible beating they spun. Those warnings and that advice were removed from the final 2006 report. And in effect that has led to hundreds of wind farms, including that at Gwyddgrug, being allowed to generate noise levels that affect people’s health.

We believe this is a matter that should properly be considered by the Welsh Government’s Health Committee. We appeal to Assembly Members to contradict Bowdler’s observation that turbine developers are supported by governments “who simply ignore people’s valid complaints”.

Go to: “Control of Noise from Wind Turbines”

Bookmark and Share

Earlier Documents »

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.


Wind Watch on Facebook

Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

National Wind Watch